About Me

Name:zapdoodat
Email: zapdoodat@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The United States needs to leave South Korea now.

Five years ago, I worked as a software engineer at Varian Semiconductor Inc.  We developed the next generation, high-current, serial ion implanter.  Ion implanters are used to make the semiconductor wafers that will be cut into microprocessors, memory and logic chips.  These machines cost about $5 million each.  In the first year, three were shipped to South Korea, three went to Japan, three to Taiwan, two to Europe and one to Micron in the United States.

All neo-cons, like Charles Krauthammer, say that Japan and South Korea reimburse the United States for our costs to defend them.  I don't believe it.  Japan spends 1% of GDP and South Korea spends 2% of GDP on defense.   The United States is spending 8% of GDP on defense. 

The U.S. defeated Japan in 1945 and came to south Korea's rescue in 1950.  A half century ago, Japan was a devastated country and South Korea was destitute.  Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao were universally feared by the free world.  However, the Berlin Wall fell almost 20 years ago and many believe in the United States, that the Cold War is still on.

Instead of paying for their own defense, the South Koreans are brilliantly letting the American taxpayer do it.  They are plowing their money into consumer electronics, automobiles, microprocessors, computers, steel, shipbuilding, cellphones and hi-speed internet access. They spend their money on R&D to prepare themselves to meet the manufacturing and technological competitive needs for the 21st century.  

The dollar is falling and will continue to fall.  America has lost millions of hi-tech and manufacturing jobs and will continue to lose them.  In the past 7 years, the national debt has gone from $4 to $9 trillion.  We are the world's biggest debtor nation.  My God, we owe China $1.4 trillion, Japan and South Korea another trillion dollars.  This picture will not get prettier any time soon.

The South Koreans hosted the Olympics 20 years ago and Tokyo hosted them 40 years ago!    South Korea and Japan, both, need to saddle up and do their share of the heavy lifting for their own defense.  They have the economies and manpower to do it themselves.

Our largest security threat from Asia is economic and technological.  We are squandering our resources. 
America needs to return to its core values, namely, promoting economic growth, innovation and small government.  

Tags: defense  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The United States real cost of defense

Too many Neo-cons like suppressing the real cost that America spends for its defense or national  security.  The number, often heard, is that the U.S. spends only 4% of GDP for defense.  This number represents only the budget for the Department of Defense.  Other departments in the US government also spend money for defense. 

To name a few, the Veterans Administration spends $73 billion per year.  The Department of Energy, annually,  spends $20 on nuclear weapons.  Other departments responsible for national security are the National Security Agency ($30 billion),  the CIA ($40) and one could even include the Coast Guard ($8 billion).  These are all yearly costs.  I'm tired of Neo-cons saying that the National Security Agency has nothing to do with national security.

Oh.  Let's add on the cost of the War on Terror.  The war in Iraq costs $120 a year and the war in Afghanistan costs $30 billion a year.
All this added up means that the U.S. spends double or about 8% of GDP on defense.  We conservatives can agree that honest assessments are needed to plan for the future, can't we?



Tags: defense  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The dollar will have a long, slow decline

I took the 'red-eye' back to Boston Wednesday night and gladly read the Wall Street Journal I adroitly scooped up at the terminal before boarding the plane.

In the 'Letters to the Editor' section, a Professor of Finance from Texas responded to an article titled "Dollar's Value Fundamental to Our
Economy."

He writes, "It is the dollar if we wish to look only at symptoms, but it is high taxes and and regulatory costs if we look at causes."

Now I was half asleep, as usual, at the time when I read this but I know the dollar has lost about half its value the past six years or so.  Not too long ago it took 75 American pennies to equal the one euro, now it takes about 156 pennies. I rapidly did the math while slurping my diet coke and discomfitting the turbulence of the aerodynamically designed airplane.

On Neil Cavuto's conservative, Republican business show on Fox News, his panel constantly derides Europe as being socialist, having way too high taxes and way too much regulation.  If the Euro is getting stronger, and we want the dollar to get stronger then it seems to me that we need to emulate Europe.  I think this means higher taxes and more regulations are needed to make the dollar stronger.

Many people think the U.S. government or the Fed can implement some solution to this problem.  I don't think so.  The problem of the declining dollar is much deeper and a longer term problem that can't easily be fixed.  Simply raising interest rates or having a government official signaling that they support a 'strong' dollar just will not fundamentally change anything.
 
The declining dollar is has three impetus's.
 
1.) The U.S. government spends more than it collects in taxes, to the tune of $5 trillion the past eight years.
2.) The United States imports more than it exports and has the largest trade deficit in the history of human civilization.
3.) Americans have become accustomed to spending more than they earn, resulting in a negative savings rate.
 
The dollar will decline until this stops.
 
The American people and their government could have been proactive to avoid these three items.   Unfortunately we haven't.  We have been living beyond our means for some time now.  Either the U.S. will decide to fix these problems or it will be decided for us.
 
The pendulum is swinging the other way, it's global markets at work. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Missile Defense = Maginot Line (21st century)

 In the late 1930’s France was desperate to protect itself from Germany.  Millions of French soldiers were killed in World War I, these dead soldiers were known as the ‘lost generation.’

World War I was fought in the trenches.  The French thought the best way to protect themselves in the future was to make the ultimate trench, the Maginot Line.  The Maginot Line was made of cement, big guns, and fortification and was a ‘virtual’ battleship on land for the entire length of the French-German border.  For each armoured division that Nazi Germany added to its arsenal the French poured another 1000 tons of concrete.

Those who believe in missile defense are like the French who believed that the Maginot Line would protect them.  The French wanted to protect their country after winning World War I, with General Blackjack Pershing's help.

We won the ‘Cold War’, against the Soviet Union and its fearsome weapon's systems.  Everyone thinks the next war will be fought like the last one with the same weapons.

Too bad it's not so simple.  There are many ways to get a nuclear bomb onto an American city.  Most likely it will be smuggled in.  How many illegal aliens are in the United States?  How hard it is to smuggle in illegal drugs?  What about a bomb in any container, on any ship, that is being imported?

Another method would be to sail a boat from Europe right into an American harbor, tie it up, walk away and..... Few ships coming into American waters are challenged, boarded and searched.
  
How about an enemy submarine coming within 50 miles of our coast, popping up, and firing a short range rocket or cruise missile in the general direction of a city.  This scenario is more likely too happen, and in my view, more accurate than an ICBM.

It's convenient thinking that the enemy threat posed will be the most convenient for us to defend against.  It just wont happen.

There were dozens of French generals with decades of experience.  And it was all the wrong kind of experience.

A better value than a missile defense system would be to simply beef up the Coast Guard.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Do Tax Cuts really increase revenue?

All the borrowing and spending, borrowing and spending and more borrowing and spending during the George Bush years has, in itself, had the ability to raise tax revenues.

Here's how,

For example, borrow $400 million from China, then, Congress decides we need a critical infrastructure investment project like "a bridge to some island, populated with 40 people, somewhere in Alaska."

The U.S.A. borrows the money, pays the workers, and the workers pay income tax. If the construction company is unlucky, it may have to pay some corporate tax too.   This is one project, now multiply all the above by 14,287. Feel free to pick another country to borrow from.

Feel free to double the size of the Department of Education. Feel free to increase entitlement spending with Medicare Prescription (part D), and free to spend $150 billion on two wars, every year, and, in general, feel free to increase domestic spending across the board. Well, sorry, I lied, cut Amtrak, but who needs mass transit when the President tells us, "we are addicted to foreign oil as never before."


The USA went from a deficit of $4 to $9 trillion the past seven years. It only took 200 years to get to $4 trillion. This total outstanding debt works out to about $33,000 per person in the USA. Now those tax cuts do feel good at the moment, but is there any upper limit to our nation's credit card?

Tags: tax  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cotton farmers sucking

Talk about sucking from the teat of the government sow!!
Cotton Subsidies by year, Texas
1995      $11,326,513
1996     $192,005,776
1997     $177,186,203
1998     $335,010,715
1999     $511,405,328
2000     $488,484,785
2001     $707,989,054
2002     $583,405,392
2003     $807,291,334
2004     $475,324,635
2005   $1,036,033,167 
Total  $5,325,462,901
That's five billion dollars!
Cotton subsidies skyrocketed under the Republican controlled Congress.  Does this represent free markets or small government? 
Does everybody know that most of the cotton grown in the USA is exported. 
Just look at the label on your clothes for that information.  Guess what country is the number one importer of US cotton? 

You got it. China.

The US taxpayer is subsidizing t-shirt manufacturing in China.  Go Figure!  Tom Delay’s district gets a lion’s share of the handouts.  Great work, Tommy Boy!

Check out these figures for farm welfare handouts from www.mulchblog.com.

Cotton subsidies for Texas

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I want to be a Supply-Sider too!

It came up in the Republican debate a few nights ago that HillaryCare would cost about $110 billion per year.   

Considering that the Bush administration and the Republican congress has expertly financed the Iraq war since 2003 with tax cuts and coincidentally moving the war's costs completely off-budget (not sure what that means)  then here's a good idea to pay for HillaryCare.   Let's double down on the tax cuts.    We double the Bush  tax cut  and spend all the money that's supply-sided on health care for the uninsured.   It seems like a Win-Win solution to me.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fred, let's get real

    Fred Thompson was asked during a Republican  Presidential debate to name one thing he would cut from the federal budget.  He said, "privatizing social security would be a budget cut that I will push for."  WRONG.

    Nothing could be further from the truth; privatizing social security.….is a short to medium term spending INCREASE.
    Under their most rosy of scenarios the private account system doesn't pay off until the young people that use it start to retire 30 years from now.  As young people divert their funds from the Social Security trust fund to their own retirement accounts then two to three trillion dollars will have to be borrowed, most likely from the Chinese, to pay those already retired and those nearing retirement.

    Let's see, one trillion dollars at a 5% interest rate is $50 billion a year.  It's time to look at this $100-$150 billion per year spending increase with eyes wide open!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Junk IOU's = UnPatriotic Thought.

Here's another poorly expressed thought on talking about privatizing Social Security. 

I can't stand it when self-named Conservatives say that "the Social Security Trust Fund is backed up by nothing but junk IOU's."   That has to be an un-Patriotic statement. 

Here's why.   Most stockbrokers, security analysts, investment bankers and certified financial analysts would agree that US treasury securities are the soundest, safest, most conservative investments in the world.   Why, because they are backed by the good faith of the US government and its citizens to repay their debts. The United States of America has a long history of repaying its debts. Our country has never defaulted. The taxpayers of the United States have a strong backbone and keen sense of fiduciary responsibility. Who would dare dispute that?

In fact, to dispute it, is to commit an act forbidden by the U.S. Constitution!

AMENDMENT XIV, Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned."

When a person equates the Social Security Trust Fund with junk, is this not questioning the debt of the United States?    When people bad-mouth Americans and our great country is this not an un-Patriotic act?   Some might even say, that the people calling our debt "junk", do indeed hate America! 

This is a talking point that should be eviscerated from the mouths of self-named Conservatives.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Newt - Weak on defense?

Too many Conservatives are eschewing our responsibility when it comes to the defense cuts in the 1990’s.   Has anyone ever heard "Bill Clinton used the peace dividend to cut the defense budget" or  "Clinton Administration defense cuts cut too much?"  This nonsense.  I mean, what was he, a dictator or something?
Guess who was Speaker of the House from 1994-2000.  You got it, Newt Gingrich himself.    Which must mean that the Republicans controlled congress.
Article I, section 8, says "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes....to provide for the Common defense and general Welfare of the United States".  Newt controlled the outlays for the Department of Defense while he was Speaker of the House.  We Conservatives need to look at the problems of the past with eyes wide open in order to solve the problems of the future.
In case anyone might say that those defense cuts came in 1993 and 1994 before the Republican Revolution, well, let’s take a look at Newt’s “Contract with America.”
His concerns in 1993 are spelled out below:
The National Security Restoration Act

An act to prevent U.S. troops from serving under United Nations command unless the president determines it is necessary for the purposes of national security, to cut US payments for UN peacekeeping operations, and to help establish guidelines for the voluntary integration of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.

Breathless stuff in our age of terrorism isn’t it?    Stating that our troops should not serve under foreign command.  Big deal, that has been our policy for 200 years.   Cut payments for UN peacekeeping operations.   Isn’t it our policy now to get the UN and NATO as neck deep as we are into the war on terror in the Middle East.
We conservatives should put the responsibility where the responsibility should really lay.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

found on an Al Qaeda site?

Our fearless leader Saddam developed Weapons of Mass Destruction to kill Americans.

The Americans came to Iraq putting themselves into close proximity to these very Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Saddam, scared off his public image being tarnished (he hoped, one day, to win a Nobel Peace Prize) banished his Weapons of Mass Destruction to a far away place called Syria. These weapons, unbeknownst to Saddam completely degraded over the next few months.

Saddam was found in a hole.

When we stand down the Americans will stand up. No, No.... when we, the Iraqis, stand up the Americans can stand down. Hoorah!!

We never stand up.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A conversation with a NH Conservative called Tim

I remember back in 1993, I was going to night school to get my MBA at Rivier College in New Hampshire.

A 'high-powered' New Hampshire banker was to show up one night and give a presentation during class.   Well, that very day, the FDIC closed down four of the five largest banks in New Hampshire.   It ended up being the state with the worst bank failure rate in the country during the Savings and Loan crisis.

The banker showed up to class, anyway.   He admitted, sometime during the presentation, that 'had the banks in liberal New York been run as haphazardly as in tough, conservative, prudent New Hampshire, then we would all be in a depression now!"

I went up to Tim's about a week later, to see a Patriots' football game, and told him that story with the banker. He said "Shhhhh…the game is about to start, you fool."

Tim and I had some short chats about the S&L crisis, in general, and I told him some things I had learned in my banking class.   Tim told me that there were going to be some excellent buying opportunities in real estate, very shortly.   I told Tim that I had seen a short clip on the news of Ronald Reagan signing the Savings and Loan Deregulation legislation sometime in the 1980's and Ronald had exclaimed at the signing, "I think we hit the jackpot!"

Later, I asked him, "Do you know what negative amortization scheme means?"

Tim said, "Bone, like I've said before, I never took a foreign language in high school."   Then, Tim said, "Isn't it time for you to go home?"

I said, "It's only half time."   

Tags: Bailout  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Should the USA go to Mars again?

A Conversation overheard at a gym between two guys on treadmills. One guy was dressed in a yellow shirt called Lance, and the other, rather pudgy, is called Mr. Bean.

Mr. Bean - "Did you see the space-shuttle launch today?"

Lance - "No, I never watch it, I actually think people, in space, is a big waste of money."

Mr. Bean - "Wow, don't you think thinking like that is un-American?"

Lance - "No, I just think it's a big waste of money."

Mr. Bean - "Our country has learned so much science and technology from the space program, don't you think so?"

Lance - "Well, that may have been true when we went to the moon over 40 YEARS AGO, but now… are you kidding?"

Mr. Bean - "Yeah, but it motivates young people to want to learn science and technology."

Lance - "You got me there, Mr. Bean, I mean, our high school kids are number one in science and technology amongst the industrial countries, aren't they?"

Mr. Bean - "Well, actually, we are pretty close to dead freaking last."

Lance - "Wow, you really think the best way to spend 10 to 15 billion dollars every year of our precious R and D money is on some BIG government program that just does the same thing, over and over and over again? Holy Cow, I remember we had a space-shuttle landing dorm-party back in 1984!"

Mr. Bean -   "God, you must be old Lance, but it makes me feel so proud to be an American when I see a space-shuttle launch."

Lance - "Do you remember that we already went to Mars with a robot, took pictures, and found out it's barren dust and rock."

Mr. Bean - "Wouldn't it be cool to go there again and have an American jump off the mother ship and plant the USA flag there."

Lance - "How much is that gonna cost?"

Mr. Bean - "Who cares?"

Lance - "Don't you think it's more important to put all that money into giving small and medium size technology companies investment tax credits that make microprocessors, memory chips, personal computers, mp3 and DVD players, HDTV's, biotech, nano-technology and other consumer goods that people buy?"

Mr. Bean - "No way, I just buy that stuff from Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese companies."

Lance - "Hey, did you ever make that model of the lunar landing module when you were a kid?"

Mr. Bean - "Yeah, the one advertised in TV Guide for a dime? That was REAL COOOOL, the hardest part was to get that crinkly "gold" foil on."

Lance - "Gee wiz, you must be as old as me! 

Mr. Bean – "I'll bet you the models are made here in the good ole USA!"

Lance – "You got me there."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, by the way, Mr. Bean is a self-described libertarian who votes Republican, drones on incessantly about tax cuts and says he HATES the government.

And Lance believes that the space-shuttle, the International Space Station, a future moon base and going back to Mars is a big waste of taxpayer's dollars and is a self-described secular-progressive.  

Go Figure!!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »